Harmonize Them

The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

In A Note to the Reader Thomas Merton explains that his friend Dr. John Wu, Chinese scholar and Catholic mystic, was his “chief abettor and accomplice” in publishing The Way of Chuang Tzu.

“Both Merton and Wu were expert blenders of East and West. Merton is not given to “exoticism.” His engagement with the Chinese material is positive and optimistic but also possesses a sober utility for broadening and developing his own ideas. Wu saw in Merton a man who could appreciate Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism in much the same way as he did, as mutually complementing traditions. Within this triangulation of ideas, I think Taoism and “Chuang Tzu” spoke most directly to Merton’s heart as a “way” beyond words and abstractions to an existential “grasp of reality.” Confucianism and Buddhism offered essential support finding this “way,” but he maintained a special empathy with the Taoist mystic. I think Taoism was probably the locus for Merton’s ecumenical dialogue with Asian religion. He once referred to “Chuang Tzu” as a second autobiography. Most of Merton’s writing possesses an autobiographical quality; his life experiences are put onto the page. This categorization of the “Chuang Tzu” says much about Taoism in the life of Thomas Merton.”

— John C. Marshell Jr. [From an Amazon review about Merton & the Tao: Dialogues with John Wu and the Ancient Sages].

Thomas Merton and Chuang Tzu

The Catholic monk Thomas Merton had a special place in his heart for Chuang Tzu [Zhuangzi], the chief authentic spokesperson for Taoism, who lived in the fourth century B.C. The texts in this wonderful paperback are the result of a five-year study of this Chinese storyteller and mystic. Merton used four translations of Chuang Tzu into western languages to create his own readings. He finds in these anecdotes, poems, and meditations “a certain taste for simplicity, for humility, self-effacement, silence, and in general, a refusal to take seriously the aggressivity, the ambition, the push, and the self-importance which one must display in order to get along in society.”

“One may call this humility ‘cosmic,’ not only because it is rooted in the true nature of things, but also because it is full of life and awareness, responding with boundless vitality and joy to all living beings. It manifests itself everywhere by a Franciscan simplicity and connaturality with all living creatures. Half the ‘characters’ who are brought before us to speak the mind of Chuang Tzu are animals-birds, fishes, frogs, and so on. Chuang Tzu’s Taoism is nostalgic for the primordial climate of paradise in which there was no differentiation, in which man was utterly simple, unaware of himself, with Tao, and with all other creatures.”

–Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat, Book Review in Spirituality and Practice [Thomas Merton, The Way of Chuang Tzu (Shambhala, 03/04)].

Socrates and Zhuangzi: The art of dialogue, Nicolas Le Jeune [Excerpts]

“The art of the Socratic dialogue is described like this by Pierre Hadot: “In order for a dialogue to be established which … can lead the individual to give an account of himself and of his life, the person who talks with Socrates must submit, along with Socrates, to the demands of rational discourse, that is, to the demands of reason. In other words, caring for ourselves and questioning ourselves occurs only when our individuality is transcended and we rise to the level of universality, which is represented by the logos the two interlocutors have in common.” In the dialogue, both Socrates and his interlocutor exercise their rationality through the dialogue. It means that they transcend their individuality, they overcome their personal prejudice and opinion and rise to the level of the logos. This logos is this common discourse that emerges from the practice of dialogue. In the concrete practice of the Socratic dialogue, this common logos refers to the realization of an accord between opinions of different interlocutors. It does not consist of a particular preexistent set of propositions or theories but arises from the practice of the rational dialogue itself. In other words, the logos is something that emerges from the dia-logos.”

—Pierre Hadot [Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault].

“…For Zhuangzi [Chuang Tzu] “the Sage does not proceed from any one of them alone but instead lets them all bask in the broad daylight of Heaven.” The sage allows the “this” and “that” to “bask in the broad daylight of Heaven”, meaning that he lets the debate, and the opinion of the participant, develop spontaneously and naturally without being stuck in one perspective. For him, the sage is “someone who really gets all the way through them, that can see how the two sides open into each other to form a oneness. Such a person would not define rightness in any one particular way but would instead entrust it to the everyday function [of each being]. Their everyday function is what works for them, and “working” just means this opening up into each other, their way of connecting. Opening to form a connection just means getting what you get: go as far as whatever you happen to get to and leave it at that. It is all just a matter of going by the rightness of the present “this.” To be doing this without knowing it, and not because you have defined it as right, is called “the Course.”

When the sage is debating, he does not stay attached to one side of the debate. On the contrary, he “gets all the way through” the different sides of the debate, so he understands how the different positions are generated by each other. Therefore, he understands how both parties of the debate are united by a dialectical process and rise to the level of the logos that emerge from the dialogos. Therefore, he “would not define rightness in any one particular way”, he will not be attached to a specific definition of “this” and “that. On the contrary, he would entrust rightness “to the everyday function [of each being],” in other words, he will go along the natural and spontaneous development of the debate, affirming “this” or “that” depending of “rightness of the present.” At one point, if we regularly repeat this exercise, we will “doing this without knowing it” and not because he has defined it as right. In other words, he will be wise not because he can define what is wisdom (which is impossible), but because he has developed through the practice of dialogue the virtuosity of his mind which allows him to be attuned with the logos or Dao (道).”

–Nicolas Le Jeune [Zhuangzi, Translated by Brook Ziporyn (Zhuangzi: The Essential Writings with Selections from Traditional Commentaries) p. 11].